Sold all Canon gear - want to switch to Nikon, need some suggestions please.Thanks

Sold all Canon gear - want to switch to Nikon, need some suggestions please.Thanks

Jan 17, 2014

Hi guys i'm new to forum but not new to DSLR world. Had some Canon gear over last 5 years, but nothing really valuable, so sold it all and now trying to decide what to buy and which way to go from scratch, any comments/suggestions greatly appreciated.

Seems like 60-70 % of my pictures were constantly out of focus or to soft.

I tried different setting and always shot with AV TV or M modes, and i know what setting to use and where, seemed like on the bright day closeups everything worked as it should but in lower contrast or with flash all my pictures got to soft/washed out. So i just got tired of it and decided to start all over with DSLR photography.

lets say my budget is around 2000$ all together for a new setup.

At this point i'm not sure if i should go FX or DX route. Looks like i can get used d600 with tamron 24-70 2.8. Or go DX let say Nikon d7000 with nikon 17-55 2.8 and new flash.

Buy a used D7000, a tokina 11-16 and a sigma 17-70 and a tamron 70-300.

That camera with those 3 lenses will cover a full range for you and should do great and scrape in just under your budget assuming you buy used equipment in excellent condition. If you don't own one you also need a tripod which could explain a lot of your nature and macro pictures being blurry.

Hi guys i'm new to forum but not new to DSLR world. Had some Canon gear over last 5 years, but nothing really valuable, so sold it all and now trying to decide what to buy and which way to go from scratch, any comments/suggestions greatly appreciated.

Seems like 60-70 % of my pictures were constantly out of focus or to soft.

I tried different setting and always shot with AV TV or M modes, and i know what setting to use and where, seemed like on the bright day closeups everything worked as it should but in lower contrast or with flash all my pictures got to soft/washed out. So i just got tired of it and decided to start all over with DSLR photography.

lets say my budget is around 2000$ all together for a new setup.

At this point i'm not sure if i should go FX or DX route. Looks like i can get used d600 with tamron 24-70 2.8. Or go DX let say Nikon d7000 with nikon 17-55 2.8 and new flash.

Or i can go canon route let say:

used 5d mkII with canon 24-105 F4 for around 2000$

new canon 70d with canon 17-55 2.8 for around 2000 $

I would like to have:

fast and acurate focus Lens+body combo

good low iso performance

good dynamic range

and sharp images in all conditions

Thanks

I also had the Canon 350D for 5-6 years, had focus issue, specially in low light.

Upgraded to D5300 which is far superior to it by any means.

First got the Sigma 17-70, but sent it back:

It's not good for landscapes, corners are horribly soft from 17-28 mm at any aperture.

For landscape the new 18-140 seems much better choice, at least for me ( need to correct distortion, but camera can do it ) or u could get the 16-85 for 2x price

You do realise that that has much more to do with the photographer and not so much, if at all, with the equipement, right?

+1

I don't think the original poster is going to get vastly superior results by switching equipment.

That said, as someone who has been itching to go full frame for a while and analyzing (and over analyzing) my options, I wouldn't recommend full frame for the OP either. FF is much more expensive, the D600/610 (and I wouldn't buy a D600 because of the oil splatter) is basically double the price of the D7100/D7000. The lenses are more expensive too. If you aren't kicking butt with a crop sensor and getting your skillset & technique really refined you might as well not waste your money on FF IMO.

For budget conscious users looking for DX I would frequently recommend D5100/D5200/D7000, 18-105mm and the three f1.8 primes 35/50/85 (and buy refurb body or 18-105 if you can find them).

Seems like you would appreciate having the D7100 over the D5300, though the D5300 has a great sensor and produces great images.

And I would strongly recommend the D7100 over the D7000. The autofocus is apparently much improved.

Consider a Nissin or Yuongo iTTL speedlight as a budget stretcher.

Can't go wrong with the Nikon 'Nifty 50', as noted above.

That leaves a standard zoom. I would say do not overlook the Nikon 18-105 kit lens. Excellent for the price, but of course there are better options. For DX, I feel one needs something a little wider--the 24-70 range ends up being a little long to suit me. 18-140 makes a lot of sense. 18-200 is great, at a little lower 'image quality' IMHO.

Looking at your past gear, you are ready to upgrade. I'm using Canon and Olympus DSLR cameras. 99% of my photos are sharp, maybe because I step down my lenses a lot, I hold my cameras steady, and have enough shutter speed. I like looking at the Nikon equipment too. They got some good stuff.

From what I read, the Nikon D7100 or Canon 70D might be good choices for you. Canon's STM lenses work well for video with the Canon 70D. I'm not sure what lenses might be good choices for the Nikon D7100. Just get some good ones that aren't expensive and upgrade the lenses in a year or two once you are familiar with the cameras. That's what I would do if I was in your shoes.

It's not good for landscapes, corners are horribly soft from 17-28 mm at any aperture.

For landscape the new 18-140 seems much better choice, at least for me ( need to correct distortion, but camera can do it ) or u could get the 16-85 for 2x price

Interesting my copy of the 17-70 is so sharp across the field, even at 17mm, I sold my 16-85. The 16-85 is simply an overpriced slow zoom.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

Which version do u have? C or the older one? What I heard is the new one is soft at wide and sharp at telephoto, but old was oposite: sharp at wide but soft tele ( soft I mean off center )

New type and by f5.6 (reasonable landscape aperture) at 17mm it's sharp across the frame. F2.8 corners aren't great but at f4 it isn't bad. Lots of people seem to "have heard" the new one is soft at 17mm, mine isn't and photozone didn't think theirs was either.

Now look at how the 16-85 performs wide open, f3.5 at 16mm, it's the same as the 17-70 at f2.8. You have to stop the 16-85 down to 5.6 to get decent corner performance too. Yet look how bad this lens performs on the long end plus the bokeh is simply nasty looking.

This is a shot out in front of my house when this subject of this lens ve 16-85 came up. I wanted to shoot an identical scene so shot tow frames on a large tripod. The corners at 17mm sure aren't "horribly soft at any aperture"...

This other was shot with a 16-85 and IMHO the corners are soft on that overpriced lens. And has horrid CA, look at the back lit branches in the top of the frame. Add in almost useless at 85mm, is a stop slower, has ugly bokeh AND is 2X the price. Like I said, it's an overpriced slow zoom.

I would just say that if you intend on using any zoom like the 18-140 you might as well get the D7000 as these lenses are just not good enough for the D7100. Lenses are always a better investment anyway. As such.. get the D7000 and a top lens

With a $2000 budget you will get a more complete kit with DX along these lines

New D7100 for $1100

New Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 at $499 or or a Used Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 $700

New SB-700 flash $327

The D7100 will provide excellent results up to ISO 6400 for people photography and the autofocus is somewhat better than that of the D600/D610 thanks to the same number of AF sensors covering more of the viewfinder area. I see this difference with my D7100 and D800 cameras.

With FX lense the cost will be 50% higher and so will be the size of the lenses and the weight of the lenses.

Where people go wrong with DX cameras is in buying the kit lenses or the ones with large zoom ranges of 6:1 or even 10:1 and then comparing them to FX cameras using FX zooms with 2:1 or 3:1 zoom ranges. Not an apples to apples comparison.

Nikon's autofocus for its cameras is on the whole a good deal more accurate than that of Canon cameras. It is the aspect of Nikon performance that is most often commented on by people making the switch from Canon.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.